US Olympic Marathon Team may come from Chicago, New York and Boston Marathon?

As usual usatf drops the ball, yet again. Fred tells us they're considering the possibility and yet people on the MLDR and WLDR executive committees say they know nothing about this possibility. Glenn, Fred, Elizabeth "the best set of volunteers this sport has had"? This is a joke right????

This new scenario makes trials standards useless and yet as is usually the case, these masterminds spent countless hours coming up with the new standards. Of course, they didn't let their committees, or anyone else for that matter, in on their little "secret" until well after it had been decided.

Same with Glenn's appointment. We get told ti will be announced shortly but the parties involved aren't allowed to tell us who it is!!!! What are we in a f***ing cold war here? Are the Chinese and the Russians shaking in their boots over our marathon selection policy?

These clowns take themselves far too seriously.

I was a 2000 Olympic Trials qualifier. It was the greatest experience of my life. It was a bigger deal for me than my marriage or even the birth of my son. I have remained a loyal member of USATF for just that life memory. I have been asked to discuss my experience with the local Kiwanis, High School, and even over lunch with the mayor. I was named to the High School Hall of Fame and was honored at the halftime of my college (a small D2 school) football game. I generously send money each and every year to a not for profit group that supports my interests in what I often refer to as "OUR SPORT". If this 3 race scenario comes to be, I will feel that the current administration has slapped myself and all others that came before me, and my brethren, in the face. I will NEVER send another dime to support "THEIR SPORT", as I will forever feel like an outsider. Please don't allow the attitudes of a few and the greed of a few more get in the way of all of the positives in the sport.

Heard from the rumor mill that in the future the US marathon team might move from the US Trials format and go to the highest US finisher at the big three marathons.

I am not sure who is in charge of these decisions but please do not let this happen.

Anyone out there that is on the inside have any info to this situation or whether or not my friend is nutz and I am dumb.

If this rumor is true, please don't go through with this and ruin what the marathon trials are and stand for.

Someone told me this rumor at the track trials as well and I think its a bad idea for a host of reasons.

NY and Chicago would split up the fields. The Boston would get everyone left (everyone but 2 people).

I don't put too much into this rumor. If one of the races wants the trials then they should bid for it.

Our system seems fine now and produced 2 olympic medals.

I think it would be a fine idea and would do the job. What do the marathon trials stand for, anyway?

Oh yeah, and the two US marathon medalists from Athens surely would have had no smaller chance to make the team and medal if it had been through a selection process like the one proposed rather than the one that's been in place.

I am under the impression that the trials stand for many things.

One being a race that everyone knows about and prepares for. You know the date, you know who has to be there to be on the team.

Another being that it gives many runners something to shoot for, "being part of the olympic trials". This probably sounds dumb to some but it is a goal for many. Sort of a Boston qualifier goal, just a bit faster.

Another being that it is a national championship race. People go to that race to see who is the best and who will make certain teams. Having this spread over a bunch of races seems foolish. Lets have the Olympic team in all events be based off of the winner or next finisher, if the same winner, from the Pre Classic, Cardinal Invite, and Penn Relays.

After already having the trials system in place it seems hard to imagine something else taking its place without any kind of logical explanation. Can someone on this board give one if they understand the details to this concept?

Debate is good.

This really makes no sense, for one they are not on the same day, in the same conditions. If this did happen everyone would have to choose Chicago because it is probably the best place to run fast. Even with that a race is there for a reason. Everyone on the same day in the same conditions, and they have to us tactics as would be used at the Olympics.

Oh heck, lets just forget the olympics and give out the medals according to who has run the fastest that year.

This is much more than a rumor. It is going to happen.

I agree it would be a bad idea to move away from the current systme. It has worked thus far and it will continue to work. How would this affect the national championships in the olympic year? Additionally I like the idea of a trial... it gives me a goal to shoot for for '08. We shouldn't let this happen.

works for me wrote:

I think it would be a fine idea and would do the job. What do the marathon trials stand for, anyway?

Oh yeah, and the two US marathon medalists from Athens surely would have had no smaller chance to make the team and medal if it had been through a selection process like the one proposed rather than the one that's been in place.

And the interesting thing is Meb and Deena both did not win their trials. So its not certain under this system they would have made the team.

You'd have guys trying to figure out who was going to duck who at what race. You might have a host of guys go to Chicago and drop out, hoping to come back in NY. If one of the big three marathons wants the benefit of having the olympic trials, then they should bid for it outright. I assume safeguards would be put in place, but Boston since it is last might be getting a lot of top american for free.

Say there are three really good marathoners in the US. Assume they all do one of the fall marathons, in theory the other guy would have it much easier in his race as he woulnd't have to race the other two guys.

I'm almost certain if athletes are consulted on this they'll be against the idea. It takes out the premise of everyone under the same circumstances, as a lot of gamesmanship would be involved in picking the fall races. The guys hoping to breakthrough and finish 3rd will be out of the picture.

I'm sure the people behind this say it will get more exposure for American athletes since the trials will be at each of the major US marathons. But in reality 1/3 of the trials will be at each of the races and the focus will be on the top few americans at each of these races like it is now.

Collusion often doesn't produce the best result.

wejo wrote:

And the interesting thing is Meb and Deena both did not win their trials. So its not certain under this system they would have made the team.

Maybe it isn't certain for you, or maybe you're just saying it merely for the sake of discussion, but I KNOW that such a system wouldn't have left them excluded. I also know that a system like it works in Japan and last I checked they have a lot more Olympic medals arguing in its favor than ours does. It's really not as complicated as you imagine it to be.

Japan has a human part to its selection process. That is not what is being proposed here.

If we want a system that will guarantee Meb and Deena a spot on the team, then just select them. The current system doesn't guarantee they'll be on the team, either.

The way I see it with this dumb idea, USATF will probably get a little more money because there are 3 races instead of one, the marathons will get the top Americans on the cheap (I'm assuming they won't be allowed to pay appearance fees to make an American favor their race over another and the americans will be forced to run their races for whatever american prize money there is), and I don't see a lot of benefit to the runners. They'll have to try and strategize on which race to run in the fall, maybe drop out of that and then all run Boston.

There are some good points listed against the idea--enough to make me think that taking the top American finisher at each of the three races is a bad thing. I like the idea, though, of having the trials in the midst of the Chicago Marathon or the New York Marathon (or whatever one is chosen). Isn't this how Kenya and Ethiopia do it? Isn't this how most other U.S. Championships (the road 10K, 15K, etc.) are determined?

On the other hand, it's a good point about how simply qualifying for the trials is a goal for many runners. (It was for me.) If the trials were dissolved, that goal would disappear. How would that affect the mid-level marathoner? Would he give up running competitively if he didn't have the trials out there to shoot for? If he did, we probably wouldn't have as many people going out and running 2:16-2:24. Would that affect the number of people we have running 2:11 or better?

but I KNOW that such a system wouldn't have left them excluded......

it would have if they ran that as there last race of the 3 and failed to run or win the first 2.

what about the prize structure of the trials, say someone like trent briney who has a great race at the trials picks up some good money vs chicago where it would take top 3 overall to earn that money.

It is already loathsome to watch the big three marathons and see Americans finishing completely out of the race with the asterisk of "first American" next to their name...now we are planning to add another comment next to that reading "Oh yeah, but he just qualified for the Olympics"?

I can't think of a better way to completely kill public interest in marathoning. The American elite marathoner already has to compete with the hordes of obese joggers for airtime...now in the midst of our Olympic trials we would have our team reduced to being 5 or 10 minutes behind the leaders as they qualify (unless we have more breakthroughs like Meb)? The great thing about the trials is that it is a competitive, dramatic race without the distractions of the 30,000 human interest stories and without the rest of the world's elite.

The other great thing about the trials is that the team qualifies together. At the end of the race the third guy comes through the chute and the three of them celebrate together. In that moment of their individual triumphs they become bonded as one: the US Olympic Marathon Team.

Lastly, we will wreck our development system. Lots of people stay with running strictly because of the dream of qualifying for the Olympic Trials. I personally know one guy who went from being a provisional trials qualifier to being a dark horse favorite. What would happen to the Hansens? Would all their 2:20-2:24 young talent just walk away?

I find this idea to be a giant step backwards just as America is finally starting to believe that years of hard work pays off and medals are attainable. But given USATFs record of incompetence it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

You sir said it better than I ever could.

Can anyone give good reasons to have it the other way though? Is there anyone that can shed some light and explain why this would be better for runners or for the sport?

If this will happen for sure you would think some good responses would come up in defense. Well other than "Japan does it."

I can see a few positives but they are weak.

- If a runner gets sick he can run another race, later in the year.

- Runner can pick a better suited course for him/her.

Really trying hard to find any more that might make sense.

Why would anyone change to this system?

Again, lets select the whole Olympic team from these criteria if it passes. Pre Classic, Standford Invite and Mt. Sac will serve as the 3 chances for sprinters, jumpers, throwers and distance runners to qualify.

Eric, the Olympic Trials are that years national championhips.

Scared Fan

You don't know that but you act like you do. Big difference and nice try. Injuries and illness can happen. There is a high chance they may have made the team from other races but the FACT was they were runners up in the Trials.

works for me wrote:

Maybe it isn't certain for you, or maybe you're just saying it merely for the sake of discussion, but I KNOW that such a system wouldn't have left them excluded. I also know that a system like it works in Japan and last I checked they have a lot more Olympic medals arguing in its favor than ours does. It's really not as complicated as you imagine it to be.

If we HAD to mess with the current selection process, maybe one good idea would be to have an Olympic Trials 18-24 months before the Olympics and choose a group of guys (5?, 10?) who would be eligible for the Olympics.

Then you could do a number of different things from this pool of people. First, you could have them run off against each other in various distances (they wouldn't all have to be marathons). There would be at least one marathon somewhere in there to determine how everyone is developing. Perhaps they would all train together for a year (not necessarily easy to coordinate).

This method would have these benefits:

1. Still have an Olympic Trials with all the benefits previously mentioned (except for having your team set in stone).

2. Great team building amongst 5-10 potential Olympians (which also adds a new "stepping stone" for guys who can make the trials but not necessarily the team).

3. Consistency of performance would be a part of the selection process.

4. A good guy having a bad day isn't eliminated.

5. If the team trained together (at least a good part of the time) we might learn as a nation how to run team tactics for things like World XC (see Athens Olympic 10k for a primer on how 3 guys (Ethiopia) working together can pull each other to higher levels)...note that the USATF 5k (Hall and Dobson) show that this is already happening in some places.

6. If one of the real Olympians gets a serious injury, you have more than one ready replacement who is actually still training for the Olympics rather than digging up the 4th place guy who probably stopped planning to be at the Olympics and may be working out with another goal in mind (10k trials, later marathon, etc).

The downfall of changing to this format is that it is logistically difficult (how do you get 10 guys to train in the same place using the same program?). This would be less of an issue if there were large sponsorship dollars behind the effort (i.e. they all got a fat salary to work together for a year or two).

I still like the Trials format as it is...

First I've heard of this scenario and I'm supposed to be part of the process.